Still waiting for a legitimate response. Apparently even the mods can summon up no less than ad hominem to support their case. :cawg:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975803]Still waiting for a legitimate response. Apparently even the mods can summon up no less than ad hominem to support their case. :cawg:[/QUOTE]To be quite frank with you, your argument deserves nothing more than absolute ridicule, but i'm getting rather annoyed by your persistence.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975267]No actually that's false. I've repeatedly refuted several points and everything i've posted [I]is [/I]proper evidence. Whether or not you want to agree with it because you're so stubborn doesn't make it any less true.:derp:
[editline]07:22AM[/editline]
Still waiting for you to refute said points by the way. Other than your 'disbelief'(?) of their validity. Do you have proof to assert your belief? Mine are based off of scientific evidence and facts.[/QUOTE]:sigh:
You haven't refuted anything, you haven't posted proper evidence; but if you want me to go in-depth as to how it's bullshit, then let's do that. Got nothing else better to do today apart from masturbate, and that just kinda becomes a chore after a while, just something I do to prevent wet dreams as it makes such a mess.
I'll be going through your posts in this thread, but before I waste my time in order to increase the size of my e-penis: the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. Their site seems to be down at the moment (conspiracy? :tinfoil:), so here's it re-uploaded. It's 130 pages but don't start crying, if my caffeine-addled self can read it all, so can you.
[url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/NIST_report_WTC_7_collapse.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24845174]Not quite.
[IMG_thumb]http://wtc7.net/docs/b7_3_s.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
The rubble from WTC 7. Now why exactly is the outer wall still in tact and leaning inwards, toward the rubble? This means that, not only did the building continue to fall vertically until the end, the outer walls were pulled inward so that they fell on top of the rubble pile. In short, Building 7 imploded. Buildings are not designed to implode. They are designed to remain standing. To achieve a precisely vertical collapse, in which the remains of the building fall inward, is the objective of [B]controlled demolition[/B].[/quote]
Implosions are not unique to controlled demolitions.
According to the NIST report, interior column 79 on the northeast side was the first to give way due to fire damage on the lateral supports on floor 13 causing the floor to collapse between columns 79, 80 and 81 all the way down to floor 5 (which was the stronger floor due to the unusual necessities of building WTC 7 over the Con Edison substation) leaving it unsupported over 9 stories and allowing it to buckle eastward.
Floor failures followed all the way up to the east penthouse. Columns 80 and 81 followed due to debris damage from falling floors and load redistribution from column 79. East to west interior column failure resulted as lateral supports failed. The first exterior columns to give way were on the southern face, falling inwards naturally as the interior columns had given way. The north face followed last and thus lay to rest on top of the pile.
The important things to note are:
[list][*]The fires were ignited by debris from WTC 1 at the southwestern face where the debris caused damage to floors 5-17. They were fed by the materials one would find in an office setting, the diesel in the backup generator fuel tanks played no role.
[*]The sprinkler systems for floors 1-20 were supplied by the water mains of the city. These having been damaged by the collapse of the towers, no water got to these floors. Floors 21 and above were fed water from tanks on the roof and so they controlled the fires on the floors between 21-30.
[*]In accordance with the 1968 New York Building code, the fireproofing material used for the supports was rated for 2 hours. They opted for 3 hour spray-applied fire resistant material on the vertical columns, and the 2 hour for floor supports. Obviously inadequate for 6 hours of continuous fires.
[*]The same building code took no account of lateral load increase due to expansion of those supports by heat, which was ultimately the cause of collapse.
[/list]
One thing you might find interesting is in page 68 of the report, in which they refute the use of explosives.
You are right about one thing, though; it did collapse inwards.
[quote=ShukaidoX]Fire could not have done this. Nor could any amount of debris. The other WTC buildings (which were closer to the two towers, mind you) were COVERED in debris, but the clean up crew had to [I]tear them down.[/I] Because steel structured buildings have never collapsed from fire.[/QUOTE]
[list][*]McCormick Place
[*]Kader Toy Factory
[*]The outer steel supports of the uppermost 11 floors of Windsor Tower which were not encased in concrete did in fact collapse.[/list]
The other WTC buildings were 9 stories tall or less, wide and flat essentially and the usual stable web of steel design. That, and there was in fact partial collapse of some supports due to fire damage. The Marriott World Trade Center, 22 stories tall, was entirely destroyed by debris from the collapsing towers. And no matter how many times you keep repeating "Steel structured buildings have never collapsed from fire", it won't become true.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24845770]My points are all rooted from legitimate sources, which do include demolitions experts and the like.[/QUOTE]Link us to these sources.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24963478]the fact you think it was done 'for pretty much no reason whatsoever' shows you know less about what you're talking about then you let on. I recommend you do some research.
[editline]07:46PM[/editline]
On the subject of NIST:
Here's a couple of slides released with NIST's inquiry.
[IMG_thumb]http://wtc7.net/docs/theory/June2004WTC7_Page_31_m.png[/IMG_thumb]
[IMG_thumb]http://wtc7.net/docs/theory/June2004WTC7_Page_37_m.png[/IMG_thumb]
NIST would have us believe that the failure of a single column near ground level led, first to a vertical progression of failures, causing the collapse of the East Penthouse, followed by a horizontal progression of failures leading the collapse of all of the building's 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse.
Basically, they're telling us it collapsed like a house of cards. :colbert:
Also, keep in mind FEMA previously had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building. When NIST released their inquiry, they changed their story.[/QUOTE]Read the report. Give us a link to the statement changing stuff.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24847741]The building the poster compared was completely different in its inner structure and is negligible in comparison due to the fact Building 7 collapsed from minimal fires whereas that structure was left burning for hours and hours. Also in building 7 the 23rd floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. Why would a building this elaborate and complex built to withstand [B]terrorist attacks [/B]collapse so entirely due to fire? [I]Not to mention [/I]it collapsed in a way that would suggest controlled demolition, as evidenced by a previous poster.[/QUOTE]Usual load of arse i've come to expect from you. I've already been through the mechanics of WTC 7's collapse. Although, give me a link to this renovation of floor 23, and the claim the entire building was built to withstand terrorist attacks, i'm intrigued. That floor contained the NYC Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;24848848][QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24846380]The Bush Administration submitted the 342-page [URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/legislation/usapatriot.html"]USA PATRIOT Act[/URL] to Congress on September 24th, 2001, just 13 days after the attack. Other [URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/legislation/index.html"]legislation[/URL] would follow, but most of the policies enacted in the name of the War on Terror would be accomplished through [URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/executive/index.html"]executive orders[/URL].
Two Senators who attempted to slow the passage of the PATRIOT Act [URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/attacks/harassment.html"]received letters containing Anthax[/URL].
Copy pasta including sources from my information. Considering what the PATRIOT Act has allowed to happen since 9/11 this should raise some alarms.
[/QUOTE]Uh, the PATRIOT Act wasn't written by the Bush Administration, it was written by Congress. Nor was it submitted September 24th, it was submitted October 24th, almost a month and a half under the attacks..[url=http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html][1][/url][url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@L&summ2=m&][2][/url][url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313][3][/url][url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3162][4][/url]
As for the Anthrax Attacks, don't you think that a Government that, according to your beliefs has managed to cover up an operation that would require thousands of people, wouldn't do something as obvious as attacking the only two people denying the Patriot Act. More so, why would they endanger hundreds of other Government Officials by sending it through mail?
[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Anthraxmailflow.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24848149]You're forgetting that WTC 7 collapsed without getting hit by anything. You say 6 hours as if it's a long time but in fact; recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor steel reinforced building, but it never collapsed. That building burned 3 times longer, but still stands today.
Research indicates that even if a steel-framed building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse.[/QUOTE]Controlled by firefighters and sprinkler systems, admittedly rather ineffectually at first. Different design, more evenly distributed as it hadn't a Con Edison substation to contend with. You can read the report for that incident in the following pdf, which also contains floor plans.
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/dl/Tr-049.pdf]Tr-049.pdf[/URL]
Also, link to this alleged research please.
I'll deal with the political aspects later, quite frankly I am really bored right now. I'll instead leave you with this quote for the time being.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24961504]If you don't like the discussion then :frog:
This is an actual discussion about a serious topic, if you don't like being a part of it then [I]get out.[/I] We have threads like 'sossidge arms' for posters like you to take part in.[/QUOTE]
Personal attacks, superiority complex.
You have a great track record. And firerain isn't funny, your reactions are. This is the first time I have seen him and I get that.
[editline]11:22PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;24972809]it's like playing jenga except instead of pulling the pieces out you're lighting them on fire
what do you expect to happen[/QUOTE]
We did that once and set a park bench on fire. I don't think that's what you wanted though.
[editline]11:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975033]Really? Resorting to calling me a troll? :frogdowns:[/QUOTE]
Over using on over used emote when people make a counter claim doesn't help you.
[editline]11:32PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975267]No actually that's false. I've repeatedly refuted several points and everything i've posted [I]is [/I]proper evidence. Whether or not you want to agree with it because you're so stubborn doesn't make it any less true.:derp:
[editline]07:22AM[/editline]
Still waiting for you to refute said points by the way. Other than your 'disbelief'(?) of their validity. Do you have proof to assert your belief? Mine are based off of scientific evidence and facts.[/QUOTE]
Taking a few sentences out of context and stringing them together is not basing your opinion on facts. Neither is posting sources that do the same thing. Steel doesn't need to melt to have it's bonds weakenned. You want a source on that, speak to a year 8 science teacher.
[editline]11:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975803]Still waiting for a legitimate response. Apparently even the mods can summon up no less than ad hominem to support their case. :cawg:[/QUOTE]
What's the point of continuing it, you ignore it. I have a rule in arguments, that attacking people ruins your argument and makes it invalid. I'm sure many people share that, and oops, you broke it.
[editline]11:45PM[/editline]
Sgt Doom, the terrorist proofing he pulled out of nowhere when he posted the rest. Obviously that many upgrades make it terrorist proof.
[editline]12:16AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;24808503]Peer pressure.[/QUOTE]
This explains it perfectly, shuck leave it here and don't embarrass yourself by ignoring sgt doom.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975803]Still waiting for a legitimate response. Apparently even the mods can summon up no less than ad hominem to support their case. :cawg:[/QUOTE]
I love how you consistently ignore the huge posts that completely rip your arguments to shreds.
[B]EDIT[/B]
Oooh, here's another one from that ever reliable list of "facts" that you gave me:
[quote]In short, Building 7 imploded. Buildings are not designed to implode. They are designed to remain standing.[/quote]First of all, the first thing that I thought of when I read this sentence was "HURR"
Second, yes, that is true. Buildings [I]are[/I] in fact designed to remain standing. But in the event that something happens that would prevent them from remaining standing, they are then designed to [I]IMPLODE![/I]
I also love how their "source" on implosions, is [I]not[/I] a source that says that buildings aren't designed to implode, but rather a source that says how implosions for demolitions work.
Right, the fires in WTC7 were not small, the south face was waaaaay the fuck on fire. The reason you see less pictures of it is because only firemen dealt with that area once debris from the first WTC damaged it. Of course, we do have video evidence of massive, MASSIVE fires on the south face of WTC7.
[Media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpMCwb5Bato&feature=related[/Media]
[I]A few small fires[/I]
Collapse time?
6 seconds? Really?
If you'd actually read the NIST, you'd know that the [B]time it took for 18 STORIES to fall was 5.4 seconds.[/B]
[Quote]"The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s, with an uncertainty of no more than 0.1 s."[/Quote]
Now since you are a conspiracy theorist, you no doubt know that the building was [B]47 stories[/B] tall. Even the video most used by the theorists shows part of the building collapse, then blatantly ignore that 2/3 of the building was still standing at 6 seconds.
[url]http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf[/url]
Read it, it will make you smarter.
And don't give me any shit about "Hurf it is a conspiraise so teh scientisms were in on it". Every scientist worth his toothbrush has most likely read that article, and we haven't seen any of those ever say anything to the scientific community.
A conspiracy like this would have had to cost the Government millions upon millions of dollars. As well as tell the demolitioners that they will be willingly blowing up a very influential building.
A conspiracy on this scale would have required the cooperation of [B]tens of thousands[/B] of people from pretty much every country in the world.
And do you really fucking think, that one out of those tens of thousands wouldn't go to some major media station and say that "My Government is about to kill thousands of its own citizens".
The world you live in is a horribly twisted moral-less one.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24976412]
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."[/QUOTE]
I like this post most of all. Atleast he took the time to carefully refute my claims (the ones he could). I have carefully rebutted every point made against me, if you missed one go back to read it. I'll continue to address any and all counterpoints to the best of my ability. As of yet however, I am not convinced there was not foul play involved in the destruction of the building.
[editline]07:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24976412]
You are right about one thing, though; it did collapse inwards.
[LIST]
[*]McCormick Place
[*]Kader Toy Factory
[*]The outer steel supports of the uppermost 11 floors of Windsor Tower which were not encased in concrete did in fact collapse.
[/LIST]
The other WTC buildings were 9 stories tall or less, wide and flat essentially and the usual stable web of steel design. That, and there was in fact partial collapse of some supports due to fire damage. The Marriott World Trade Center, 22 stories tall, was entirely destroyed by debris from the collapsing towers. And no matter how many times you keep repeating "Steel structured buildings have never collapsed from fire", it won't become true.
Link us to these sources.
[/QUOTE]
I'm about to show you how right I really am.
Firstly, McCormick Place, really?
[IMG]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg[/IMG]
The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse.
And the toy factory fire...
There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were death traps, constructed from [I]un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.[/I] You're trying to compare that to a skyscraper with EXTENSIVE heat insulation?
Even your last 'building collapse from fire' is not anything close to such. Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings [I][B]totally [/B][/I]collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples I just debunked) that just makes this all the more strange.
[editline]07:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24976412]
Read the report. Give us a link to the statement changing stuff.[/QUOTE]
Here's the important stuff out of FEMA's report:
[LIST]
[*]At 9:59 AM (after the south tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
[*]Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
[*]Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
[*]This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
[*]The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
[*]The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
[*]The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
[*]The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.
[/LIST]
The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. [I]After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude: [/I]
[I] The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.[/I] Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy,[B] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence[/B]. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
[I][B]
Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. [/B][/I]
If we wanted to use Occam's Razor right now... I'd say controlled demolition sounds a lot more plausible.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24975803]Still waiting for a legitimate response. Apparently even the mods can summon up no less than ad hominem to support their case. :cawg:[/QUOTE]
Here's why: politically, you are no factor. The only people who take you seriously are other conspiracy theorists. The things that are worth arguing over are real issues, like the death penalty, climate change, religion in schools. Issues that ordinary people have differences of opinion over. Refuting all the conspiracy theories you've run across is as pointless as arguing with a flat-earther. Even if we win (and we won't because you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias) who cares? What difference does it make?
Second, there is no reason to refute every minor quibble with NIST reports, every official slip of the tongue recorded during that chaotic event, because there's no logical endpoint to it all.
-Let's say you're right, and WTC 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition. Why? You make such a big deal out of how it "conveniently" collapsed inwards. In a massive disaster with debris from other buildings, airliners, and bodies spread over several city blocks, who gives a damn if one building made a slightly smaller mess? How is this worth the incredible risk of somehow setting up a controlled demolition in a populated building without anyone noticing?
-You claim there's no precedent for a steel building collapsing due to fire. There's sure as hell no precedent for someone planting demolition charges all throughout a building and demolishing that building WHILE PEOPLE WORK THERE, WITHOUT THEM NOTICING. Which of these scenarios is more likely?
-Why have there been no information leaks? In a world of whistleblowers and Wikileaks, a conspiracy that would have to have had hundreds if not thousands of people in on it has perfect security?
-Not only that, but you don't have the experts on your side. You can cite Bob the Builder in Buttfuck Ohio all you want, but if your claims really held water, if the NIST report and other reports were really BS, the real experts would be all over it. En masse. It would be all over the news.
Oh wait, it wouldn't be all over the news because the media's part of the conspiracy, right? There's a few thousand more people right there--many of them involved for no reason, even. For example, lots of WTC7 conspiracists like to cite that some TV station reported the WTC7 as collapsing before it actually happened. This clearly proves that the station knew it was supposed to collapse because they were part of the conspiracy. They obviously needed to be given the Terror Attack Itinerary beforehand. Because, you know, they wouldn't have just reported it anyway.
-Or maybe all the experts on physics and building support and demolition are part of the conspiracy, and that's why they haven't said anything. There's thousands more right there.
It's a good thing all these thousands of people all over the country are universally willing to take part in this morally abhorrent plot, execute their roles with perfect competence, and remain silent about it for a decade afterward. I wonder, is every structural expert in the US some kind of CIA plant, trained at a secret base? Or are they ordinary citizens who have been brainwashed with some kind of conspiracy ray? This warrants further study.
-If a small cabal of conspirators wanted to simulate a terrorist attack on the United States, they would have stolen some planes, and crashed them into the WTC and the Pentagon. They could probably do that with less than 20 people.
They would NOT orchestrate an insanely complex plot involving sneaking into occupied buildings, tearing apart the walls and planting hundreds of demolition charges, then leaving without a trace, then preventing the media and demolition experts, not to mention NIST and the scores of other independent investigators, from uttering a word against the official story, which, according to you, holds no water.
They would NOT do that, because that would be STUPID. It would be so stupid it would never work. Even if it could work, it would still be stupid because there are a hundred simpler, less risky ways of achieving the same result (blown up buildings).
What you are doing (and by you I mean the conspiracy theorists who are feeding you your opinions) is desperately searching the rubble of 9/11 for discrepancies, holes in the official story. Most of these discrepancies are based on misunderstandings, dodgy fact-finding, or are just plain wrong. But even if they weren't, it still wouldn't matter because the picture you have built from them is so phenomenally stupid it doesn't even warrant consideration.
That is why your conspiracy theory is dumb.
[QUOTE=John-Fu;24973333]Fucking Bush administration... I'm not even French and I get mad at him for all those deaths.[/QUOTE]
are you fucking kidding me
do you blame him for Katrina too
[editline]03:03PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;24975740]You fools why can't u WAKE UP and start THINKING FOR YOURSELVES
*quotes conspiracy website verbatim*[/QUOTE]
everybody but me is a SHEEP
the government controls everyone BUT me
don't drink the water
etc.
[QUOTE=TH89;24983957]-Why have there been no information leaks? In a world of whistleblowers and Wikileaks, a conspiracy that would have to have had hundreds if not thousands of people in on it has perfect security?[/QUOTE]
This was a really good post. Although we share differing view points, I respect your desire to rebuke them legitimately, and will therefore do the same (to the best of my ability).
These are a few plausible reasons behind why there aren't more whistle blowers.
[LIST]
[*]The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
[*]How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
[*]The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
[*]Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
[/LIST]
This concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms. Not to mention, would you think that the lackeys doing the lowly work (ie: covertly planting explosives, etc) would have any knowledge of their grand scheme? If anything, they probably didn't even know what it was they were told to carry. You think guys like that could just blow the whistle without having a huge backlash (not unlike seen in this thread?).
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984348]These are a few plausible reasons behind why there aren't more whistle blowers.
[LIST]
[*]The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
[*]How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
[*]The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
[*]Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
[/LIST]
This concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/whistleblowers.html]LOL[/url]
e - Come on dude, I write 2 pages and you reply with a copy/pasted page from a conspiracy website? I don't think you have the right to be calling anyone a sheeple here.
[QUOTE=TH89;24984495][URL="http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/whistleblowers.html"]LOL[/URL][/QUOTE]
cool, you found my pasta. how's the sauce?
In seriousness, you can find evidence of security being pulled prior to 9/11, and testimonies of people seeing covert groups of men coming in and out doing 'something'. They were probably only slightly less ignorant to what was going than the people inside the building that day. If there was an actual group of people with full insider knowledge onto what happened, my guess is it would be comprised of a small group of incredibly powerful people.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984582]cool, you found my pasta. how's the sauce?
In seriousness, you can find evidence of security being pulled prior to 9/11, and testimonies of people seeing covert groups of men coming in and out doing 'something'. They were probably only slightly less ignorant to what was going than the people inside the building that day. If there was an actual group of people with full insider knowledge onto what happened, my guess is it would be comprised of a small group of incredibly powerful people.[/QUOTE]
Even if it was compartmentalized, it's very likely if a big group of people did a certain job(like laying the explosives or something), once the buildings fell literally day(s) after they would be able to put the pieces together.
I mean, I could just paste stuff from Loosechangeguide.com, if that'd save us some time.
someone said they saw some people doing something, pretty obvious what they were doing
exhibit A: "SOMETHING"
probably planting demolitions charges
exhibit B: WITNESS TESTIMONY
nobody would lie to me, ever
so you can see I've got an airtight argument here
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24973300]just saying the empire state building looked like it got hit alot worse and still staid up[/QUOTE]
You mean when a plane the size of a bus smashed into it at slow speed?
Wow, look at that hole! It must be at least 15 feet across!!!
[IMG]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=TH89;24984660]I mean, I could just paste stuff from Loosechangeguide.com, if that'd save us some time.[/QUOTE]
You've yet to discredit my sources other than by simply associating them with more radical claims that I have not once cited or sourced. Loose change is not what we're talking about, don't change the subject. I asked you: [I]how is the sauce?[/I]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984582]cool, you found my pasta. how's the sauce?
In seriousness, you can find evidence of security being pulled prior to 9/11, and testimonies of people seeing covert groups of men coming in and out doing 'something'. They were probably only slightly less ignorant to what was going than the people inside the building that day. If there was an actual group of people with full insider knowledge onto what happened, my guess is it would be comprised of a small group of incredibly powerful people.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to waste my time looking for your evidence. How about you present evidence of people walking in the building, doing something, then walking out with no visible change before 9/11.
I mean "those people"
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984986]You've yet to discredit my sources other than by simply associating them with more radical claims that I have not once cited or sourced. Loose change is not what we're talking about, don't change the subject. I asked you: [I]how is the sauce?[/I][/QUOTE]
There's nothing to discredit. I explained why such a massive conspiracy would need a massive number of conspirators. All you really responded with was "well, one reason why there weren't any whistleblowers could be because there weren't very many people in the conspiracy." What am I supposed to say to that?
automerge... also, come on dude. I refute pages worth of evidence and post my own right above you and you reply with belittlement.
"This concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms."
Small number of insiders? Didn't we just say that in an event like this there would be thousands upon thousands of people?
I find it hard that the Media has anything to do with this, if you have thousands of people who took part in killing thousands of their fellow countrymen because their Govmt told them to, you'd think they'd start doing something different. Even something like Blogspot or Youtube then spreading the word would suffice to get many, many more people involved.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984348]This was a really good post. Although we share differing view points, I respect your desire to rebuke them legitimately, and will therefore do the same (to the best of my ability).
These are a few plausible reasons behind why there aren't more whistle blowers.
[LIST]
[*]The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
[*]How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
[*]The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
[*]Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
[/LIST]
This concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms. Not to mention, would you think that the lackeys doing the lowly work (ie: covertly planting explosives, etc) would have any knowledge of their grand scheme? If anything, they probably didn't even know what it was they were told to carry. You think guys like that could just blow the whistle without having a huge backlash (not unlike seen in this thread?).[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/media]
also, again. You have my copy pasta. How is the sauce? If you really wanted to try and prove me wrong, that would be a way to do it.
[editline]08:53PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;24985163] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
this made me laugh, thanks. I needed something to cheer me up
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985167]also, again. You have my copy pasta. How is the sauce? If you really wanted to try and prove me wrong, that would be a way to do it.[/QUOTE]
We don't need to "prove you wrong" we have mountains of credible evidence from witnesses, reporters, various investigations, all of which point to the same conclusion.
You are challenging that conclusion. The burden of proof is on you.
Okay, and my proof has been posted. [I]Repeatedly. [/I]So what next? Oh yeah I think after that you post proof, or try and discredit mine, as it has yours.
[quote]
* The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
* How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
* The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
* Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
[/quote]
None of these things are "proof." This is a series of vague, unsupported suppositions. There's nothing to refute.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985272]Okay, and my proof has been posted. [I]Repeatedly. [/I]So what next? Oh yeah I think after that you post proof, or try and discredit mine, as it has yours.[/QUOTE]
What fucking proof? My god this is so frustrating, you don't state proof, you say that "No steel buildings have collapsed from fires before 9/11" You're not presenting any evidence, you're 'refuting' the evidence that the other side has.
And refuting evidence is NOT evidence.
And I kinda did address your source a bit, though it's midnight and I want to go to sleep in a bit.
Try post #458 (right before: guess who?) I responded thoroughly to someone's evidence and since then no one has refuted me.
Right, what you have there is speculation now isn't it? Until you provide evidence that it was in fact brought down by controlled demolition, you don't have a leg to stand on. And in fact, why don't you present your findings to the dozens of people who worked on the NIST article.
You don't have evidence that it was a controlled demolition.
When you provide ACTUAL evidence of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, not "Well fires couldn't have done it so that means it was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people", I, for one, will join you in your 'quest for truth', so to speak.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.